Not sure how to explain this to you so you understand. The vectored thrust on the Raptor will still be at the back of the aircraft. If you want to gain pitch rate the end of the nozzles point up and only 20 degrees. There is nothing in Raptor vectored thrust to make the aircraft slow down.
Harrier vectored thrust results in a nose pitching moment because the front nozzles are located forward of the center of gravity. The increase in turn performance is derived at the cost of speed.
It is apples and oranges.
If it's such a non-starter, why are we pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into developing this technology? What is the origin of this vectored thrust approach? Did it come from the Harrier or some egghead doing simulations who thought it was a good idea so let's spend some money on it? And if it did come from the Harrier, and it is being developed due to the successes of Air-to-air engagements of the Harrier vs. Air Superiority Fighters, then how can you say the Harrier doesn't have a magic move?
The answer to the rest of these questions is that the F-22 vectored thrust is derived from the same principal of vector mechanics with a totally different application. The reason Harrier type vectoring is such a nonstarter is the complex nature of four moveable nozzles compared to two, structural loading and fatigue issues, and dash performance issues since fighters like to be able to go fast and that means afterburner. The Raptor vectored thrust isn't supposed to produce a magic move it is supposed to provide sustained maximum performance.
bookmark info bump
>Harrier vectored thrust results in a nose pitching moment because the front nozzles are located forward of the center of gravity. The increase in turn performance is derived at the cost of speed.
***Any time an aircraft chooses to turn, there is a tradeoff versus speed. But the Myles book shows that the Harrier using VIFF obtains a more efficient (fully blown) wing utilization, thereby reducing the speed cost and increasing the maneuverability better than any other aircraft:
“ What was happening was that although the wing was losing lift, this was being compensated by the lift from the deflected engine thrust. Thus, in a turning dogfight when an opponent had reached the point of stall, the Harrier would still be turning at ever decreasing speed and radius. When the enemy was forced to break out of the turn, the Harrier could reverse back towards him, throwing the nozzles aft and getting immediate maximum acceleration. Of course, the throttle setting had never been altered, and only the nozzle lever had been used. When the thrust was directed straight back again, there was no gradual build up. Acceleration was instantaneous…. If the pilot did it correctly, he entrapped air on top of the wing, ending up with what they termed a “fully-blown” wing. That, said the Marines, was how they were turning circles faster than the designers believed the aerodynamically capable of. … They were aviators of the old school who pointed to the Harrier’s loss of energy when the nozzles went down. What they ignored was that fighter pilots had always given up energy in the hard break maneuver with thrust off, brakes out, trying to force an overshoot.”
It appears that you are in the same rut as the old school aviators who “could not accept that the Harrier offered them that same capability, only magnified many times.” In addition, you do not address the underlying point, which is that this technology derived from the Harrier and was carried forward because of Air-to-air successes of its implementation.
>The answer to the rest of these questions is that the F-22 vectored thrust is derived from the same principal of vector mechanics
***That appears to be a slippery acknowledgement of the Harrier’s role in the derivation of this technology. You’re answering the question without addressing the issue, beating around the bush. The reason why any of this was being looked at was because of the effectiveness of VIFFing, that capability unique to the Harrier which you claim is not a “magic move”. If it was so effective in the Harrier, how can you claim it doesn’t have a magic move? The Harrier without VIFF lost to a T38 every time, but using VIFF it attains a kill ratio of 10:1 against your F14 in combat exercises.
> with a totally different application. The reason Harrier type vectoring is such a nonstarter is the complex nature of four moveable nozzles compared to two,
***That confirms my position that the cancelled P.1154 (supersonic Harrier) project would have been a superior fighter platform compared to the current generation, and perhaps even hold its own against the next generation except in stealth. That was a hugh mistake – the Brits could have owned the market for supersonic STOVL fighters 30 years ago.
>structural loading and fatigue issues, and dash performance issues since fighters like to be able to go fast and that means afterburner.
***Using afterburners in dogfights is often a bad idea, because of the ease of takedown by a heat-seeking missile, one of the reasons why the Raptor is aiming for sustained supersonic performance without burners.
The Raptor vectored thrust isn't supposed to produce a magic move it is supposed to provide sustained maximum performance.
***Fair enough, but where did vectored thrust come from? It came from that magic move the Harrier has that you claim it doesn’t have, with resulting kill ratios to bear out the fact.